Add Category
After President Donald Trump said he had called off a military strike on Iran shortly before it was to begin, he followed up by imposing new sanctions. This comes on top of the Obama-era sanctions he reimposed on Iran after pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
They're also a tool Trump has access to without the OK of Congress or that Congress can force upon him, as it did with regard to Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for election interference.
So how effective is this device that's short of military action but more than simple diplomacy?
Their use is rising
Sanctions have been used increasingly by presidents of both parties since September 11, 2001, after which the government used them to target supporters of terrorism, according to John E. Smith, a former director of Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which manages US sanctions, who is now a partner at the law firm Morrison and Foerster.
He said a good way to think about them is as "the alternative between words and war, between mere diplomacy and boots on the ground."
But the Trump administration, he said, has accelerated the use of sanctions further, due to Trump's embrace of confrontation.
"I think the administration is more willing to confront traditional allies and partners, as well as those countries that it is engaged in diplomatic, military or political standoffs with," said Smith, pointing out that the Iran sanctions were reimposed over the objections of European allies. He also noted that the administration has targeted officials in Turkey, a NATO ally of the US, with sanctions.
Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't
The Obama administration used sanctions in conjunction with allies and others to pressure Iran. The Trump administration has upped the sanctions on Iran unilaterally and is in turn threatening European allies, Japan and India with US sanctions if they don't go along.
"The resumption of sanctions on Iran by the US alone -- without the Europeans, the Asians, other members of the UN Security Council -- may be saddled with that same difficulty in achieving change, given that the rest of the world largely disagrees with the objectives and the mechanisms the US has employed," he said.
But when sanctions levied against Iran by the Obama administration were imposed as part of a coalition of European, Asian and North American countries, they got Iran to the negotiating table, he said.
They're imposed for all kinds of reasons
Most sanctions have been levied for narcotics trafficking and terrorism, according to the Enigma analysis.
And from that perspective, sanctions may be of limited utility. The US has been targeting Cuba, North Korea and Iran for decades, but all three regimes remain.
These include:
- The invasion of parts of Ukraine by Russia in 2014
- The cyberattack on the 2016 US presidential election
- Human rights abuses
- Use of a chemical weapon on a former Russian spy and his daughter in the UK
- Facilitating trade with North Korea
- Russian banks involved in Syria
- Selling weapons to Iran, North Korea and Syria
- Individuals facing sanctions with respect to terrorism and international crime
'Functioning under an illusion'
"They may help to create economic leverage, which when coupled with other instruments of policy -- military force protection, diplomacy, covert action, multilateral efforts of collaboration -- in fact they can be meaningful to help accelerate a process of diplomatic negotiation or a stability operation," according to Rosenberg.
"But if we think that sanctions will cause regime change, then we are wrong."
Politicians and policy makers are not likely to stop using them, however, since they give the appearance of action.
"People are functioning under an illusion where they believe this is a muscular tool that can get it done when words don't do enough and military action isn't available," said Rosenberg.